My assumption is that there is either no real agenda to legally oblige people to use contrived pronouns, nor is there any way in which this could occur. We're not legally obliged to refer to males as 'he' or females as 'she', so I doubt very much that laws will be made compelling people to use other pronouns.

Personally, I am fond of the British 'they' to refer to someone whose gender is either unknown or irrelevant.

But if a person born a man decides to become a woman or vice-versa, I have absolutely no problem referring to them with a pronoun that suits their respective genders and I can't see why anyone would.

The other issue is that using someones appearance to determine which pronoun to use is always going to result in error.

For instance I take issue with certain aspects of masculinity. I've not actually considered this, but I might in some parallel universe have decided that this was good enough reason to no longer identify as a man. I might have no signs of this so far as my appearance goes. I could not possibly be offended if someone referred to me as a man, or called me Sir.

So do we have a world in which people are afraid to speak in case their choice of words offends someone?

Also its automatically divisive. Once you legislate the pronouns to use to refer to trans people there will be a divide between those who accept it and those who would rather be refered to by how they appear. This is only the initial fracturing it would cause, as far as I can tell it would just continue until everyone is afraid to speak freely.

I think demand for reasonable rights is fair. But the idea that language needs to be regulated is untenable.

I'm all for protecting trans people from discrimination, but I think it's a tricky issue. Perhaps limits on what can be defined as discrimination need to be in place because I think pronoun use unless done so in a deliberately hurtful way cannot possibly qualify

If you disallow all religious perspectives on whether or not they can prove the existence of God then religion is illegal tomorrow.

No, Matthew, it just means that you can't base laws on religious - or other unproven ideological - beliefs.

Faith is by definition beyond the realm of empiricism and naturalism. This is why the first amendment exists, to keep people who don't have religion or have a different religion from taking it away from those who don't agree with them because religion is actually important for reasons those disciplines don't cover... The first amendment is to protect atheists the same as Islam.

Yet there are those in America of a religious - read "Christian" - persuasion who are attempting to use the First Amendment to give themselves special privileges. Hence the spate of "Freedom of Religion Acts" - why else attempt to pass these into law if the First Amendment protects everyone, regardless?

More than that... I linked the definition of what speech is. Could a restaurant chef consider his food and accommodations speech under the posted legal definition? The court is arguing this. Read the briefs... they answer this eloquently for both cases. The briefs are available.

I'm reminded of the hullabaloo over the county clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to sign/authorize same-sex marriages in Kentucky.

She claimed that she did so according to her religious convictions, and the bible.

Yet it was pointed out that Jesus, when approached by Jews - who said that they were required to carry out duties that were against their beliefs - advised that they carry out their duties. Bearing in mind, they were working for the state, like Ms. Davis.

The argument stands or falls on whether this also applies to those working in the private sector.

I'm left with the feeling that the baker's arguments in court are just a case of ducking-and-diving to avoid serving members of the community with whose life-style he doesn't agree. Decorating a cake doesn't mean you condone an idea or life-style. If others decorate cakes for any occasion regardless, will they be taken to court for "hate speech", if it's for the KKK ("Kill Niggers/Jews!"), etc?

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

MatthewLee wrote:"First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s become more famous since reality television shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes. However, from the beginning Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties."

Did this answer the question? Was that a yes or a no?We should expect the baker in the case of Masterpiece cakes, be consistent, to refuse to sell a cake to any couples which have not demonstrated their past history to show they never have divorced from a previous spouse, no?Is he not courting eternal damnation by not doing so?

Perhaps his denomination does not believe adultery is a sin, or perhaps they do not believe that a divorcee remarrying is adultery.

And concerning the Halloween and Bachelor cakes, why should anyone expect him to make such cakes? When it isn't a service that he offers? The expectation about wedding cakes is different however since he does offer that service.

MatthewLee wrote:He did not deny them service. He denied them a custom artistic expression but offered them anything else in the store. He SOLD (or gave) THEM A CAKE THAT THEY TOOK HOME. That's by definition providing a service.

Which is why I mention a and not all services.Let's see if we can use an hypothetical to illustrate this issue andd see if you agree with it or not:

An interracial couple decides to go to a fine restaurant because they have heard amazing things about the sirloin steaks they serve. Once at the restaurant, a waiter sits them at the entrance bar (the one you wait until there's a table) despite arriving for their reservation. They order a couple of drinks but after time passes and they still do not get their table they ask what is going on.

The explanation is that they don't sit interracial couples at the tables. It goes against the chef's religious beliefs to serve them food.

At least they weren't denied service, they did have drinks at the bar.

Is that correct?

MatthewLee wrote:He didn't deny them service... They took a cake home. They were served. On the other hand they could not force him to make a custom cake for their wedding because that would be compelled speech... by his assertion... and that violates his first amendment rights.

I specifically named the good/service "wedding cake".

So was that a yes then? As long as the baker sold them another baked good, he would have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to any marriage he finds objectionable. If this includes the marriage of an homosexual couple, it would also apply to the marriage of a jewish couple, of an african-american couple, of a liberal couple, etc.

He would not "deny them the wedding cake service because of who they are..." but rather because of their actions to whom he would not want to lend his artistic talents too.

MatthewLee wrote:If you disallow all religious perspectives on whether or not they can prove the existence of God then religion is illegal tomorrow. Faith is by definition beyond the realm of empiricism and naturalism. This is why the first amendment exists, to keep people who don't have religion or have a different religion from taking it away from those who don't agree with them because religion is actually important for reasons those disciplines don't cover...

You missed the point, I simply find it weird to use something that you cannot measure, let alone demonstrate the existence of, as a metric.

MatthewLee wrote:Again, it wasn't the 'who' it was the 'what'. He agreed to sell them a cake... he wouldn't make one to support the ACTION. It was an ACTION he disagreed with. He wouldn't support their wedding with his custom art. The disctinction you will not acknowledge because it is essential. He didn't discriminate against the people but their actions. How can we not see the difference between a person, their desires, and THEIR ACTIONS!

So he does not make any wedding cakes at all then? No, of course not, we know he does.

He wasn't asked about a cake to support the "ACTION" of celebrating Halloween or celebrating a bachelor party, something his business never previously did, but he does make cakes to support the "ACTION" of celebrating a wedding and his business sold numerous of those before.

So what was the difference from all the previous times where he his business sold a wedding cake? Why did he not want his business to make a cake to support the "ACTION" of celebrating a wedding this time?

MatthewLee wrote:I'm sorry is a custom wedding cake a right?

You are asking the wrong question:"Is being treated equally a right"?

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Having read both linked articles, which you've provided, Matthew, a few thoughts have occurred to me.

Firstly, in your previous posts, you've stated that the baker sold (or gave) them a cake:

MatthewLee wrote:He did not deny them service. He denied them a custom artistic expression but offered them anything else in the store. He SOLD (or gave) THEM A CAKE THAT THEY TOOK HOME. That's by definition providing a service.

MatthewLee wrote:He didn't deny them service... They took a cake home. They were served. On the other hand they could not force him to make a custom cake for their wedding because that would be compelled speech... by his assertion... and that violates his first amendment rights.

I'm not sure from where you got this idea but it turns out not to be the case.

On page 11 of the Court PDF, it states:

Craig and Mullins sat down with Phillips at Master-piece’s “cake consulting table” and told him that they wanted a cake for “our wedding.” Pet. App. 64a. Phillips informed the couple that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, but that he would make them any other type of cake or other baked good. Id.at 65a. Craig and Mullins immediately left the store. Ibid. The next day, Craig’s mother called the bakery, and Phillips advised her that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. Ibid. Craig and Mullins eventually obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored layers from another bakery, which they used in their cake-cutting ceremony. See id. at 75a n.7, 289a-291a.

Whatever about the legal stance on this matter - SCOTUS appears to have ruled against the Colorado court's decision against the baker - I think that the baker has failed as a Christian.

He may believe that he's thinking/acting in accordance with his faith - or, to be more precise, his interpretation of his faith - but he's simply blind to the fact that his thinking/actions are actually un-Christian.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself", and "Judge not lest ye be judged", (should) trump any disagreement with another human being.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Having read both linked articles, which you've provided, Matthew, a few thoughts have occurred to me.

Firstly, in your previous posts, you've stated that the baker sold (or gave) them a cake:

MatthewLee wrote:He did not deny them service. He denied them a custom artistic expression but offered them anything else in the store. He SOLD (or gave) THEM A CAKE THAT THEY TOOK HOME. That's by definition providing a service.

MatthewLee wrote:He didn't deny them service... They took a cake home. They were served. On the other hand they could not force him to make a custom cake for their wedding because that would be compelled speech... by his assertion... and that violates his first amendment rights.

I'm not sure from where you got this idea but it turns out not to be the case.

On page 11 of the Court PDF, it states:

Craig and Mullins sat down with Phillips at Master-piece’s “cake consulting table” and told him that they wanted a cake for “our wedding.” Pet. App. 64a. Phillips informed the couple that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, but that he would make them any other type of cake or other baked good. Id.at 65a. Craig and Mullins immediately left the store. Ibid. The next day, Craig’s mother called the bakery, and Phillips advised her that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. Ibid. Craig and Mullins eventually obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored layers from another bakery, which they used in their cake-cutting ceremony. See id. at 75a n.7, 289a-291a.

[/qoute]

You are correct, I was wrong on this point. Thank you for the correction. I had mistaken the exchange on page seven of the oral arguments transcript where his lawyer had said...

"Justice Sotomayor,that's not how he responded to the couple. Thecouple came in and they requested a custom cakefor their wedding. At that point, they broughtin a folder with all kinds of designs theywanted to discuss and ended up purchasing arainbow-layered cake or -- or received a freerainbow-layered cake, which certainly isexpression. "

The rainbow layer cake was not purchased, I am led to believe, from Jack but rather provided by another baker. He did not refuse, however, to sell them anything. He simply refused to make a custom design for them which in his view represented an endorsement of their marriage. Further on page 8 through 9 it is elucidated... if I read it correctly... that a premade cake even with a Bible verse on it would even by his standards have been prior speech, therefore not compelled and he would have sold it. It is my understanding that he would have sold them anything in the shop or made them a cake for any other purpose but that specifically he would not make a cake for their wedding. This is really what they are trying to decide. Whether or not the act of being forced to decorate and create a custom designed confection which supports something you don't believe in is compelled speech. Remember that they specify that speech need not even include words or images. In one case a honking car was considered speech.

Speech to a lawyer in this case means something very different than it does to non-lawyers.

Dragan Glas wrote:Whatever about the legal stance on this matter - SCOTUS appears to have ruled against the Colorado court's decision against the baker - I think that the baker has failed as a Christian.

He may believe that he's thinking/acting in accordance with his faith - or, to be more precise, his interpretation of his faith - but he's simply blind to the fact that his thinking/actions are actually un-Christian.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself", and "Judge not lest ye be judged", (should) trump any disagreement with another human being.

Kindest regards,

James

I would respectfully offer a correction on this matter of Christian Doctrine.

He was loving others as he would want to be loved. Even if you don't agree try and see it from his perspective.

If I was doing something exceptionally dangerous like smoking and everyone around me encouraged me and praised me for being a brave smoker then they would not be very loving, would they? That would jeopardize my life. To a Christian like this man... he feels that he would want someone to let him know if he was in error that could jeopardize his soul therefore he considers his behavior very loving. He was loving them as we would be loved by warning them that what they were doing might put their souls in danger. I have also said that Jesus warns us not to lead others astray by putting stumbling blocks in their way.

Second... Judge not is also wildly misused. Read the whole passage. Keep reading and you'll see he says...

"Matthew 7Judging Others1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and [a]by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how [b]can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

Removing the speck from your brothers eye would be correcting someone for what is perceived to be their immoral actions. The point is that before you try and do this make sure you are not far more guilty of the sin or you may face judgement as well and make yourself look foolish. It's about hypocritical judgement, not a blanket instruction to just accept everything everyone does and endorse it. As Jack is not a practicing homosexual he has the right to speak out against this sin because he does not practice it himself therefore is not likely to be judged for it. If we later find out that Jack is... then he was wrong to judge and to comment by refusing to make the cake.

I have never interpreted this part of Scripture as a blanket statement telling Christians not to judge anyone ever.. far from it. It's about making sure are practicing what you preach. Jesus wanted us to judge but only when we had cleaned house in our own lives and could help others from a place of righteousness or else why would he say in John 7:24

"24 Do not judge according to appearance, but [c]judge with righteous judgment.”"

MatthewLee wrote:"First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s become more famous since reality television shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes. However, from the beginning Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties."

Did this answer the question? Was that a yes or a no?We should expect the baker in the case of Masterpiece cakes, be consistent, to refuse to sell a cake to any couples which have not demonstrated their past history to show they never have divorced from a previous spouse, no?Is he not courting eternal damnation by not doing so?

Perhaps his denomination does not believe adultery is a sin, or perhaps they do not believe that a divorcee remarrying is adultery.

In some cases, specifically fornication, even Jesus said divorce is ok. Does he look into the moral fiber of each person he bakes a cake for to be consistent with refusing one kind of design on moral grounds? What is he, the FBI? In this case a very clear violation of his principles (the situation not the persons) walked into his shop and two men asked for a service he could not in good conscience provide. If this service is speech, the court will find for him and he will get his business back. If this service is not speech then it is likely the court will ferret this out and he will lose his business. There is no argument either of us can make for or against this that the court didn't make on both sides. I can't defend him or condemn him more eloquently than either side and everything we are discussing is in the briefs and answered. The point is about speech, not about the morality of others or their moral consistency and doesn't need to be... that's not what the court is arguing.

If we want to argue whether or not what he is doing is moral and to say that only one kind of moral conviction is right whereas others are wrong I am excited to debate that. Which objective standard do you cite to prove your assertion that his actions are immoral?

MarsCydonia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:He did not deny them service. He denied them a custom artistic expression but offered them anything else in the store. He SOLD (or gave) THEM A CAKE THAT THEY TOOK HOME. That's by definition providing a service.

Which is why I mention a and not all services.Let's see if we can use an hypothetical to illustrate this issue andd see if you agree with it or not:

An interracial couple decides to go to a fine restaurant because they have heard amazing things about the sirloin steaks they serve. Once at the restaurant, a waiter sits them at the entrance bar (the one you wait until there's a table) despite arriving for their reservation. They order a couple of drinks but after time passes and they still do not get their table they ask what is going on.

The explanation is that they don't sit interracial couples at the tables. It goes against the chef's religious beliefs to serve them food.

At least they weren't denied service, they did have drinks at the bar.

Is that correct?

[/quote]

Of course that's wrong. They are not wrong for simply being an interracial couple. What sin did they commit? On the other hand what part of the chef's provided services are claimed to be speech here? The chef has no reasonable claim to free speech in this case because his food cannot be reasonably expected to convey a message. A steak cannot be considered an expression by any precedent I'm aware of. He would be wrong if he did the same to a gay couple. That's clearly a denial of service. This case will not change that. It's not about accommodations in the public space... it's about what is compelled speech and what is not. It is likely that even if the baker wins this example would still be very illegal.

Let me throw on back at you, respectfully because I am enjoying the exchange...

What if he seated them and they insisted that he write "I am wrong about interracial marriage which God blesses" on a custom made and designed dessert for them? Is that compelled speech if its against his religious belief? The question of whether his belief is wrong is not in this issue... is it compelled speech?

MarsCydonia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:He didn't deny them service... They took a cake home. They were served. On the other hand they could not force him to make a custom cake for their wedding because that would be compelled speech... by his assertion... and that violates his first amendment rights.

I specifically named the good/service "wedding cake".

So was that a yes then? As long as the baker sold them another baked good, he would have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to any marriage he finds objectionable. If this includes the marriage of an homosexual couple, it would also apply to the marriage of a jewish couple, of an african-american couple, of a liberal couple, etc.

He would not "deny them the wedding cake service because of who they are..." but rather because of their actions to whom he would not want to lend his artistic talents too.

I was incorrect, he in fact did not sell them a cake but he did say he would sell them anything already made in the shop or other things... but would not custom make a piece of what he considers his art to celebrate their marriage. Is the cake speech as defined by the first amendment? If it is speech then he can deny it to anyone he likes. I think this is a slippery slope though. Anyone who, after this case, wishes to utilize this objection will have to be able to prove that their denial of service is a protected tool of speech and not just a normal good/service/accommodation. This won't overturn the civil rights act, it just means you can't make people express things they find objectionable through art. What is and what is not art? Is there a clear definition? I think we can agree that a seat at a diner is not art therefore cannot be denied but what about a painting? Imagine you were painter and the chef from the former example wanted you to paint a picture of interracial couples burning in hell... can you refuse him service because you object to his religious views even though religion is a protected class under the civil rights act? Is it defensible in a court if he tries to say you are refusing him the service/good labeled "painting" because of his religion?

MarsCydonia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:Again, it wasn't the 'who' it was the 'what'. He agreed to sell them a cake... he wouldn't make one to support the ACTION. It was an ACTION he disagreed with. He wouldn't support their wedding with his custom art. The disctinction you will not acknowledge because it is essential. He didn't discriminate against the people but their actions. How can we not see the difference between a person, their desires, and THEIR ACTIONS!

So he does not make any wedding cakes at all then? No, of course not, we know he does.

He wasn't asked about a cake to support the "ACTION" of celebrating Halloween or celebrating a bachelor party, something his business never previously did, but he does make cakes to support the "ACTION" of celebrating a wedding and his business sold numerous of those before.

So what was the difference from all the previous times where he his business sold a wedding cake? Why did he not want his business to make a cake to support the "ACTION" of celebrating a wedding this time?

Because in his faith marriage is specified to be between a man and a woman and celebrating the wedding of two men would be blasphemous to him. He has no right to deny them services/accommodations/goods. He has a right to not have his speech be compelled and if the custom art of his cakes is deemed speech by the court then it is protected by the first amendment. At least this is the way I understand it.

In truth... in most cases I think Christians need to leave belief out of it when dealing in the public market. Kim Davis should have just given the licenses out... it was her job and she should have been fired for what she did. You can't tell anyone they can't shop in your store and surely not deny them a cake at a supermarket. On the other hand... if you make anything that generally can be described as a commissioned work in the sense of a piece of art... then it is likely considered your speech and therefore cannot be compelled.

MarsCydonia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:I'm sorry is a custom wedding cake a right?

You are asking the wrong question:"Is being treated equally a right"?

[/quote]

I'm asking the question the court is being asked... The court has already decided many times before that being treated equally before the law is a right. If the cake is speech, then this isn't about equality it's about unconscionable compulsion. If not, the the court will uphold the right to equal treatment.

Sparhafoc wrote:Tyranny on religion: when you don't get to impose your religious convictions on everyone else.

Again, this is just theocracy in the language of privilege.

MatthewLee wrote:Do you recall the graphic I posted earlier which showed that Christian majority countries are almost Exclusively where same sex marriage rights are legal...

Only if you recall me saying 'formerly Christian nations'.

The link isn't that they are Christian, but rather that the importance of Christianity diminished rapidly, and people in those nations stopped using their religious prejudices to limit others in society.

We can look at specifics if you like because you can bet your Bible that there's a direct negative correlation between those attending church and identifying as Christian and the nation's laws extending protection over groups which would have faced censure before. It's not a coincidence that these same-sex marriage laws have happened in recent decades, whereas Christianity's influence has plummeted in that same period.

MatthewLee wrote: and there are 0 Islamic nations which allow this?

As I said the last time you made this point: isn't this an argument AGAINST privileging Christian belief in the USA? By and large we don't hold the Muslim majority nations to be examples of stellar civil rights, they are often theocratic. To me, the notion that you want to be able to privilege Christian prejudice against homosexuals means you are essentially making a statement here of admiration for Muslim-majority nations.

So yeah, that's what a theocracy gets you - that's what privileging the religious convictions of believers arrives at.

MatthewLee wrote: How can you say that Christianity has privilege when it almost universally allows other ideologies...

Well, first and foremost because I don't recognize your rendition. Insofar as history is concerned, what I see is a direct relationship between Christianity as a majority treating people abhorrently; with nations ubiquitously following it providing little in the way of equality and human rights, and then we see a steady decline in the ardency of Christian belief, and a consequent improvement in the equitable treatment of sub-groups in those nations.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the USA, a nation which still possesses a very high number of ardent Christians, also happens to be one of the most acrimonious battle-grounds of religious conviction against marriage equality.

MatthewLee wrote:... and say that Islam and atheism don’t have privilege when only Islamic and declared Atheistic governments entirely reject same sex marriage equality?

Of course, I never said anything at all about the latter, and it's a red herring. I don't know what an 'atheistic government' is, but I find it specious that you are not acknowledging the fact that all the nations which have extended marriage rights to homosexuals are SECULAR.

I want to offer respectful pushback of this point without sounding too contentious or rude. It's spirited but with great respect for the intelligence you show and only in defense of my point. At no point should this be read with malice or other malicious intent.

That being said... OK forget Islam, Christianity and Judaism.. What about China and India? Almost half the population of the world lives in these two countries and there is absolutely no Christian influence there. They do not entertain LGBT equality in most senses and certainly do not entertain same-sex marriage equality. Their human rights records are abysmal. The Human rights records of almost every country on Earth is spotty at some point and all kinds of justifications are used.

The Soviet Union was declared atheist and I assure they were not friendly to same-sex relations at all. You could end up dead for that. You can't blame the church for that.

Japan is secular and they do not entertain same-sex marriage equality. There is almost no Christian population there.

Half the world rejects this institution and many basic human rights as we know them on grounds that have nothing to do with Christianity or any religion as we know it.

Humans cause tyranny and human rights abuses without the justification of religion necessary. Because some humans claim that God made them do it doesn't make that true any more than Jodie Foster actually is guilty of Reagan being shot.

Same sex relations and marriage are not resisted solely on Christian grounds, or even religious grounds... there are secular governments which ardently resist them for their own reasons.

Many of the other nations of the world are not acrimonious battle grounds because they won't even let you propose the idea so it can be debated.

He did not refuse, however, to sell them anything. He simply refused to make a custom design for them which in his view represented an endorsement of their marriage.

Hi Matthew.

I want to point out the doublespeak nature of your argument.

1) Yes, he refused to sell them something as you can see in the second sentence of your statement.2) The repeated addition of 'custom' has no bearing for anyone here; it's an example of torturous gymnastics that is being used in the courts to manufacture obfuscation.3) The entire debacle hangs on the fact that he believes that making a cake endorses same-sex marriage, but the Bible does not offer a shred of scriptural support for this belief.

With respect to the latter, if Christians or other religionists think they can just make up bullshit about their religion in order to evade the laws or privilege themselves in the eyes of the law, it does damage to them, and to the religion, and to secularism. Religionists often fail to realize that the latter is actually vital to their best interests, ensuring that some other religious majority will never outlaw their beliefs.

Secularism is the greatest defense of religious conscience available, but it is absolutely antithetical to religious privilege. Pull down that load-bearing wall, and the whole edifice will come tumbling down on your head.

On the matter of marriage, I seemed to have missed the part of the Bible that says a marriage is only between two persons of opposite sexes. It only, as far as I know, condemns man lieing with a man like he would a woman as an abomination. Surely if you look examples of marriage in the Bible it is clear it's far removed from the equal union and agreement of two people it is commonly though as today, even if you think it should between a man and a woman.

MatthewLee wrote:Does he look into the moral fiber of each person he bakes a cake for to be consistent with refusing one kind of design on moral grounds? What is he, the FBI? In this case a very clear violation of his principles (the situation not the persons) walked into his shop and two men asked for a service he could not in good conscience provide.

Then you should understand the observation I was making: Jack Phillips' conscience, the one that is "loving homosexuals" and does not want to support their "sin" (wedding), does not seem as concerned or as loving when it comes to heterosexual couples.

MatthewLee wrote:If we want to argue whether or not what he is doing is moral and to say that only one kind of moral conviction is right whereas others are wrong I am excited to debate that. Which objective standard do you cite to prove your assertion that his actions are immoral?

If you want to discuss morality, you should know that most of the active commenters here have had these types of discussions before, quite a few times, and we've found the religious claims to be disappointing.

But if you really want to go over it, do open a thread, you will have people commenting on it assuredly.

MatthewLee wrote:Of course that's wrong. They are not wrong for simply being an interracial couple... ...He would be wrong if he did the same to a gay couple. That's clearly a denial of service....

You wrote a couple of other things in that section that I will address but the point I was raising was excatly this: It was a denial of service.

In this hypothetical, just because the interracial couple ordered drinks does not mean they weren't denied service.

So you should understand, just because Masterpiece Cakeshop offered other goods in the shop does not mean they did no deny service to the homosexuals.

In both the cases, we're talking about an item on the menu that is offered to the public and for which money is normally exchanged but was denied to the couple.

Just because one is claimed to be "speech" does not change the fact that it is also a service, speech and service are not mutually exclusive, and that service was denied to the homosexual couple.

MatthewLee wrote:What sin did they commit?

That is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law as 'sin" is not a legal term.

Unless... "Religious Freedom" laws are pushed where religious persons are permitted to opt out of providing goods and services if those goods and services would violate their religious beliefs.

Remember HWIN's reductio ad absurdum? We know that some religious people oppose interracial relationships, some states even had laws in the books to prevent such unions. In such case, it wouldn't matter what you or I believe is a "sin", it would matter what the restaurant chef believes.

And if he believes that serving an interracial couple is violating his religious beliefs, they're out of luck.

MatthewLee wrote:On the other hand what part of the chef's provided services are claimed to be speech here? The chef has no reasonable claim to free speech in this case because his food cannot be reasonably expected to convey a message. A steak cannot be considered an expression by any precedent I'm aware of...

...Let me throw on back at you, respectfully because I am enjoying the exchange...

What if he seated them and they insisted that he write "I am wrong about interracial marriage which God blesses" on a custom made and designed dessert for them? Is that compelled speech if its against his religious belief? The question of whether his belief is wrong is not in this issue... is it compelled speech?

That is a weird hypothetical to throw because unless the restaurant offers desserts with custom messages written on them, then they couldn't possibly ask for that.

It is doubly weird because in the Masterpiece Cakeshop, no such message was to be written on the cake either. Remember that Jack Phillips considers the cake itself, no matter what is on it (since decorations were never discussed) to be a message.

So this is what the case is indeed about. You argue that the chef cannot reasonably consider the steak itself to be a message while we should be expecting to agree that a cake is a message, one that says "I, Jack Phillips, approve of this marriage"...

MatthewLee wrote:Because in his faith marriage is specified to be between a man and a woman and celebrating the wedding of two men would be blasphemous to him.

So his faith in marriage is specified to be between a man and a woman but not between two men. So how is this not "who"?

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Visaki wrote:On the matter of marriage, I seemed to have missed the part of the Bible that says a marriage is only between two persons of opposite sexes. It only, as far as I know, condemns man lieing with a man like he would a woman as an abomination. Surely if you look examples of marriage in the Bible it is clear it's far removed from the equal union and agreement of two people it is commonly though as today, even if you think it should between a man and a woman.

Sorry I haven't had much time to come back to this, I have greatly enjoyed the exchange and wish to express how much I've missed the give and take. You folks put me through my paces and I love it!

The requirement of marriage which makes binary sex interpretation, gender roles, and heterosexual marriage, sacred to a Christian is found in two places in Scripture... It is found once in the Creation story:

Genesis 2: 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

And then again it is explicitly stated by Christ himself:

Mark 10: 2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to [a]divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and [b]send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “[c]Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother[d], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

The Bible tells us this about wives"

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Many of the Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture of the time and yes they represent an antiquated view of marriage by modern standards. I would suggest that this was true as far back as even the 1980's in the United States.

I think my question about marriage would be what is it? What is marriage when removed from it's spiritual context? In other words.. To the secular or atheist worldview what is marriage and why is it necessary or desirable and is there any special mandate or protection you feel it should be given?

MatthewLee wrote:The requirement of marriage which makes binary sex interpretation, gender roles, and heterosexual marriage, sacred to a Christian is found in two places in Scripture... It is found once in the Creation story:

So the bible describes procreation partnerships using gendered terms and does not mention homo-sexual partnerships and therefore homosexual partnerships are immoral?

MatthewLee wrote:I think my question about marriage would be what is it? What is marriage when removed from it's spiritual context? In other words.. To the secular or atheist worldview what is marriage and why is it necessary or desirable and is there any special mandate or protection you feel it should be given?

In the U.S. marriage is a contract that the state uses to grant privileges to couples.

He did not refuse, however, to sell them anything. He simply refused to make a custom design for them which in his view represented an endorsement of their marriage.

Hi Matthew.

I want to point out the doublespeak nature of your argument.

1) Yes, he refused to sell them something as you can see in the second sentence of your statement.2) The repeated addition of 'custom' has no bearing for anyone here; it's an example of torturous gymnastics that is being used in the courts to manufacture obfuscation.3) The entire debacle hangs on the fact that he believes that making a cake endorses same-sex marriage, but the Bible does not offer a shred of scriptural support for this belief.

With respect to the latter, if Christians or other religionists think they can just make up bullshit about their religion in order to evade the laws or privilege themselves in the eyes of the law, it does damage to them, and to the religion, and to secularism. Religionists often fail to realize that the latter is actually vital to their best interests, ensuring that some other religious majority will never outlaw their beliefs.

Secularism is the greatest defense of religious conscience available, but it is absolutely antithetical to religious privilege. Pull down that load-bearing wall, and the whole edifice will come tumbling down on your head.

I have asked myself the question, "Would you make the cake?" and I have been forced to admit that I would have made the cake. In my case it would not have been an endorsement, however... it would have just been a cake and probably quite a bad one because I have no marketable skill in cake decorating. I couldn't get a job at a supermarket decorating cakes. By the same logic, Kim Davis was wrong not to issue marriage licenses because the law was very clear that she was bound to in the practice of her job and not expression in any way, shape or form. As Christians we are bound to follow the law.

Romans 13 13 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

The law states you can't deny someone service on the basis of their sexual orientation, that part is clear. The Kim Davis example was quite clear because there was absolutely no way expression or speech was involved. Jack Phillips is not so clear because if the cake is in fact considered art then it is speech and therefore protected. This is where it is not doublethink, because there are not two simultaneously conflicting ideas being held as both true at the same time. Either the law says it's art, or it doesn't and that hasn't been decided yet. When it is decided, then we can say Jack is absolutely wrong or right. Is a cake art? Let me reiterate why I think this argument is compelling...

"In July 2012, two men came into Jack’s cakeshop requesting a custom wedding cake celebrating their same-sex marriage. In a very brief exchange, Jack politely declined the request, saying that he could not design cakes for same-sex weddings, but offering to design them custom cakes for other occasions or to sell them any other premade item in his shop." https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/c ... k-phillips

He didn't refuse to sell them something already made. He didn't refuse to sell them something they could have made themselves or could have had just anyone else make or why go to him? If this is true then his craft is unique and not just any craft. He refused to craft something as an artisan with a special skill in trade which was sought after and special in the marketplace. He refused to create for them... not just to bake a cake. His considers his craft an art and it is hard to say that custom wedding cakes are not art because the people who make them are trained as artists. It is like sculpting.

I was a professional culinarian for many years... my first degree work was in culinary arts and I admit that cake decorating is a wide spectrum into which my talents never fell! The kind of cakes you get at the supermarket are made by people with minor skills and no one would really call them art. The kind of cakes made at Jack's level requires special skills that rank one at the level of an artisan. They require skills in baking, painting, drawing, sculpting and everything in between. It's not just a cake at that level, it's an expression akin to speech.

His art is an emotional, spiritual expression of his heart as far as he is concerned and his heart serves God.

Do you consider art an expression which is akin to speech?

You keep asking where the Bible says not to bake the cake so I'll let Jack (and his law team) answer the questions in their time on 'The View' because there is no answer to the direct question. There weren't cakes of the kind he makes in the first century available so the Bible likely wouldn't have mentioned them but the meta-idea was clearly expressed.

"Joy Behar: What exactly is your belief that prevents you from making that cake? What is it?

As Mr. Phillips expressed, he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, as God created it to be. The Bible clearly teaches it.

Behar: But there are other things in the Bible I'm sure you don't believe.

No. I believe every word in the Bible, and I teach all of it. As a pastor, I go word for word through the Scriptures to help the hearers understand what God has said through His prophets and apostles.

Sara Haines: Well that actually brings me to my question, because one thing that's always confused me about this is that in the Bible it says many things if you read it.

Thank you, I have.

Haines: I was raised in the church, and it says do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. But it also says don't judge others. We're not the final judgment. It also says love thy neighbor. There are a lot of messages in there. How do you reconcile in your own spirituality which ones to go with, because in my mind, whether you believe in it or not, you should definitely not marry a man (laugh). But if someone else does, it's not my place to judge them because God will ultimately judge them (audience applause).

First of all, the Bible doesn't say not to judge at all. In John 7:24, Jesus said, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." You're making judgments now regarding Mr. Phillips. Secondly, God created marriage, and He said it is to be between a man and a woman. Jesus made this point also in Matthew 19:4-6. Whoever is having sex outside of that definition of marriage is guilty of sexual immorality.

We read in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that those who practice homosexuality or sexual immorality of any kind will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 says they will be cast into the lake of fire. God has already said what that ultimate judgment will be. So out of love for my neighbor, I do not want to encourage him in sin that will exclude him from the kingdom of God. Jesus died to forgive sin such as this, not so someone would persist in sin such as this. Wouldn't you agree it is actually unloving to encourage someone in behavior that will harm them?

Host: There are artistic endeavors that have no relation to same-sex couples at all that you decide -- I just want to be clear about that, because these other things that you do not (indiscernable). They're not related to gay marriage, or...

Okay.

Paula Faris: I have a question for you, too, kind of bouncing off of Sara's question. I know that you're a Christ-follower, and Jesus was even criticized by some of His followers for hanging out with the lowest of the low; the tax collectors and the sinners. Did you ever ask yourself: What would Jesus do in this particular situation? Instead of denying them, do you think maybe Jesus would have said 'I don't accept this, but I'm going to love you anyway'? Do you think that maybe would have had a more powerful testimony?

Jesus would not have encouraged someone in behavior that positioned them under the wrath of God on judgment day. He told the sinners to go and sin no more. Your question accuses Mr. Phillips of being unloving by refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. On the contrary, he told them they could buy anything from his shop regardless of their sexual orientation. But he could not encourage behavior the Bible says is destructive.

Faris: So you don't believe that -- I just ask, what do you think Jesus would have done in that situation?

He would have told a sinner to repent before something worse happened to them, as He did in John 5:14.

Behar: Oh, come on. Jesus would have made the cake.

Faris: Jesus could turn water into wine. He could do whatever He wants to do.

Behar: You can believe the Bible and everything, but Jesus, that's a deal-breaker. Jesus is gonna make the cake.

The devil told Jesus, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." Jesus replied, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." And what has come from the mouth of God is that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Mr. Phillips is attempting to live in accordance with what God said.

MatthewLee wrote:The requirement of marriage which makes binary sex interpretation, gender roles, and heterosexual marriage, sacred to a Christian is found in two places in Scripture... It is found once in the Creation story:

So the bible describes procreation partnerships using gendered terms and does not mention homo-sexual partnerships and therefore homosexual partnerships are immoral?

MatthewLee wrote:I think my question about marriage would be what is it? What is marriage when removed from it's spiritual context? In other words.. To the secular or atheist worldview what is marriage and why is it necessary or desirable and is there any special mandate or protection you feel it should be given?

In the U.S. marriage is a contract that the state uses to grant privileges to couples.

The Bible maintains that homosexuality is immoral therefore any partnership based on it is Biblically immoral. The Bible specifically instructs Christians to engage in heterosexual marriage as a holy sacrament ordained by God for His purposes and because He said so. It is not that the exclusion of their mention makes them immoral... it is that there is only one sanctioned form of marriage. Leviticus 18 does specify pretty much all of the necessary sexual boundaries to understand why marriage is defined as such in Christian theology. This includes every familial boundary I can think of and bestiality whether by male or female. Leviticus 18 is a list of things will which mostly get you arrested in almost any nation on Earth; secular or otherwise!

If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?

MatthewLee wrote:If we want to argue whether or not what he is doing is moral and to say that only one kind of moral conviction is right whereas others are wrong I am excited to debate that. Which objective standard do you cite to prove your assertion that his actions are immoral?

If you want to discuss morality, you should know that most of the active commenters here have had these types of discussions before, quite a few times, and we've found the religious claims to be disappointing.

Making religious claims to morality is impossible between parties who dispute the existence of deity. One must discuss the cognitivist, noncognitivist debate which is interesting but complicated. I feel it has to be a philosophical debate rather than a spiritual one. I would start a thread for that. What should I call it?

MatthewLee wrote:The Bible maintains that homosexuality is immoral therefore any partnership based on it is Biblically immoral. The Bible specifically instructs Christians to engage in heterosexual marriage as a holy sacrament ordained by God for His purposes and because He said so. It is not that the exclusion of their mention makes them immoral... it is that there is only one sanctioned form of marriage. Leviticus 18 does specify pretty much all of the necessary sexual boundaries to understand why marriage is defined as such in Christian theology. This includes every familial boundary I can think of and bestiality whether by male or female. Leviticus 18 is a list of things will which mostly get you arrested in almost any nation on Earth; secular or otherwise!

If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?

Actually the Bible is fairly explicit that homosexuality is not immoral, but that homosexual "acts" are sinful. In the Talmudic tradition (or rabbinic law) the denizens of Sodom were more guilty of the "not being hospitable" to newcomers rather than any type of sexual deviancy. Christians get this wrong, but to be fair, it's not their book. The New Testament goes much deeper into this but this tends to be more focused on the the acts during sex rather than being in a partnership or relationship with the same sex.

The Bible makes no statement toward any model of marriage. In fact, the only time its ever brought up is within the magisterium of the Catholic church. This is just one of those convenient sayings no one bothers to look up.

These are silly arguments within the context of harm and still relies on Christianity's victim complex and morally toxic "original sin". In the words of Hitchens, "We are created sick and commanded to be well." By the way, anytime you need to go to Leviticus to discuss morality one should immediately stop and read the whole of Leviticus. You can almost take chapters 20-23 in any Old Testament book and find vile shit.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Dustnite wrote:Actually the Bible is fairly explicit that homosexuality is not immoral, but that homosexual "acts" are sinful. In the Talmudic tradition (or rabbinic law) the denizens of Sodom were more guilty of the "not being hospitable" to newcomers rather than any type of sexual deviancy. Christians get this wrong, but to be fair, it's not their book. The New Testament goes much deeper into this but this tends to be more focused on the the acts during sex rather than being in a partnership or relationship with the same sex.

Very respectfully: Can you please cite me chapter and verse where homosexuality is explicitly declared not immoral in the Bible... the action or the inclination? I will away's listen to Scripture.

Also, in reference to the sin of Sodom.

Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

In the original Hebrew the word translated as "detestable things" is the same one used in Leviticus 18:22 for 'abomination' (Strong's H8441).

Leviticus 18:"22 You shall not lie with a male as [l]one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

As far as I have been able to research it... this is to be differentiated from the other word usually translated as abomination which is H8263 such as when they discuss seafood in Leviticus 11:10. To me, this would indicate that the sin of Sodom was great as the Bible says but not just inhospitality.

Dustnite wrote:The Bible makes no statement toward any model of marriage. In fact, the only time its ever brought up is within the magisterium of the Catholic church. This is just one of those convenient sayings no one bothers to look up.

This brings to mind:

Genesis 2:24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:4-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)4 And He [Jesus] answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

I would respectfully submit these as statements towards a model of marriage in my view.

Dustnite wrote:These are silly arguments within the context of harm and still relies on Christianity's victim complex and morally toxic "original sin". In the words of Hitchens, "We are created sick and commanded to be well." By the way, anytime you need to go to Leviticus to discuss morality one should immediately stop and read the whole of Leviticus. You can almost take chapters 20-23 in any Old Testament book and find vile shit.

Touche that we have a victim complex but the religion was started by a martyr who was crucified and then carried on by people who got burned at the stake, tortured and crucified for their faith... soooo.... if anyone can legitimize a victim complex it has to be us.